^    '-Jl 


iU^^V 


/^•^VK 


^i«il&. 


3,ti. 


r  ■ 


PRINCETON,    N.    J 

Divisui! ^■— ^    ^~  z^tL 

Shelf. Ahimber .-.. 


i 


ti/-^  /«.  •-*  I^ 


/If  ^if  hWacwi^^  f^  A  .J:— /^^^>< 


AN 


ESSAY 


ON 


Church  Government. 


By   ALEXANDER    MILLER,    A.M. 


ALBANY: 

PRINTED    BY    WHITING    &    LEAVENWORTH, 
1801, 


ERRATA. 

Page  io,  line  22,  read  crucifixion. 
^  line  24,  iox  hear  ^^2^^  bear. 

II,  line     7.  for  ^j  read  ^«. 
19,  line    5.  after /A^Mnfert /^ 
23,  line    9»  read«>^-«. 
26.  line    2,  read  leaven  leaveneth. 
2l\  Vint  15>  (or  office  vt^dofence. 
30    line    9.  for  numbers  read  memlers. 


£S^e9^u  ce. 


M 


ANY   valuable  things  have  been  written   on 
church  government  in  the  two  laft  centuries.     Thefe 
writings,  however,  are  either  fo  tedious  in  their  man- 
ner, or  fo  rarely   to  be  met  with  in  this  country,  that 
they  are  of  little  fervice  to  us.    Yet  the  fubjeO:  is  no  lefs 
interefting  to  us  than  it  was  to  our  father?.     It  is  not 
enough  that  they  underftood  it  :  people  of  every  age 
and  nation  fhould  be  acquainted  with  it.     And  whafc 
renders  an  attention  to  it  the  more  necefiary  for  us  at 
the  prefent  time  is,  that  our  frontiers  are  rapidly  filling 
with  inhabitants  brought  up  under  different  modes  of 
church  government ;  who  are  now  forming  themfelves 
into  congregations.     To  people  in  fuch  circumfl^nces 
it  may  not  be  unprofitable  to  have  prefented,  in  a  con- 
cife  manner,  what  the  fcriptures  teach  us  refpeSing  the 
government  of  the  church  of  God.     Thefe  are  the  mo- 
tives of  the  following  elTay.     It  is  fhort,  that  it  may 
be  eafily  procured,  and  that  it  may  not  tire.     If  it  may 
meet  the  approbation  of  him  who  is  made  head   over 
all  things  to  the  church,  and  contribute  fomething  to- 
wards the  edifying  of  his  body,  this  will  be  the  highell 
reward  that  can  be  received  by 

The  AUTHOR. 

Albany,   \Jl  Septemhcr,   1801. 


An  Essay,   &c. 


=«9»»)(|>»IC 


XT  is  an  obvious  truth,  that  every  community  muH: 
have  fome  government.  This  affures  us  that  the  Church 
of  Chrifl,  the  mofl  important  community  that  was  ever 
eredled  on  earth,  is  not  without  one.  And  to  imagine 
that  he,  whom  God  has  fet  as  king  in  Zion,  on  whofe 
fiioulders  the  government  is  laid,  and  who  is  faithful  as 
a  fon  in  all  his  houfe,  fiiould  not  have  prefcribed  to  his 
church  any  particular  form  of  government,  but  left  it 
to  the  difcretion  of  every  religious  fociety  to  frame  one 
for  itfelfjis  a  fuppofition  too  extravagant  to  be  for  a  mo- 
ment admitted.  We  may  therefore  expedl  to  find  in 
the  writings  of  the  apoftles  and  prophets,  full  informa- 
tion refpefling  the  government  which  Chiifl  has  infli- 
tuted  in  his  church.  We  are  not  indeed  to  look  for  a 
plan  of  government  in  all  its  parts  dravrn  up  in  form. 
We  mufl  colleft  it,  as  we  do  every  thing  elfe  relating 
to  the  kingdom  of  Chrift,  from  various  parts  of  the 
holy  fcriptures. 

From  thefe  we  learn,  that  Chrift's  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world  ; — that  it  is  fpiritual,  defigned  to  preferve 
p.urity  of  morals,  and  to  piomote  the  edification  of  the 
body  ; — that  its  difcipiine  confifts  in  admonitions,  cen- 
fures,  and  at  moO,  excommunicaiion,  or  cutting  off  from 
the  church  ; — that  the  holy  fcriptures  contain  the  laws 
by  which  it  is  to  be  governed  ; — that  the  Lord  Jefus 
is  its  on^'  head  and  the  fouice  of  all  ecclcfiaftical  au- 


C       8      J 

thorlty,  and  that  the  power  of  his  fervants  is  only  de- 
pendent, fubordinate  and  minifterial.  Thefe  pofitions, 
I  fuppofe,  few  will  controvert,  and  fhali  therefore  take 
them  for  granted.  T^vo  points,  namely,  to  what  de- 
fcription  of  perfons  the  power  of  governing  is  com- 
mitted ;  and  how  far  their  authority  extends  ;  whether 
to  a  fingle  congregation  only,  or  to  more  united  under 
a  common  government,  will  be  the  principal  fubje6ls 
of  the  following  inveftigation. 

It  is  of  importance  here  to  confider,  that  the  church 
under  the  Jewifli,  and  the  church  under  the  chriftian 
difpenfation,  is  one  and  the  fame.  This  appears,  to 
look  no  farther,  from  the  eleventh  chapter  to  the  Ro- 
mans;  where  the  former  is  reprefented  as  the  good 
olive  tree,  and  the  latter  as  a  branch  of  a  wild  olive 
tree,  grafted  on  it,  and  partaking  of  its  root  and  fat- 
nefs ;  and  when  the  Jews  faall  be  reftored,  they  are  to 
be  grafted  again  into  their  own  olive  tree  ;  that  is,  re- 
ceived into  the  fame  church  from  which  they  had  been 
excluded.  Things,  typical,  ceremonial  and  local,  have 
ceafed  fince  the  coming  of  Chiift  ;  but  the  church  be- 
ing fubftantially  the  fame,  under  both  difpenfations, 
things  effential  to  its  being,  or  its  well-being,  and  things 
of  moral  and  perpetual  obligation,  remain  in  full  force. 
And  we  hold  it  as  an  indifputable  maxim,  that  what- 
ever has  been  inftituted  by  divine  authority,  and  has 
never  been  abrogated,  continues  Hill  to  be  a  divine  in- 
ftitution.  It  is  on  this  principle  that  the  infants  of 
believers  are  acknowledged  as  members  of  the  church, 
and  receive  the  feal  of  tlie  covenant.  This  order  of 
thinos  God  inflituted  in  his  covenant  with  Abraham, 
and  has  never  ordained  otherwife.  We  therefore  right- 
ly conclude,  that  this  is  flill  a  divine  inditution. 


C  9  ] 
Gn  the  fame  principle,  and  with  equal  force,  we 
argue,  that  as  under  the  Jevvifh  difpenfation  a  form  of 
government  was  inflituted  by  divine  authority,  and  has 
never  been  annulled;  therefore  it  continues  Hill.  It 
is  true,  that  by  the  coming  of  Chrifl.  the  office  of  high 
priefl  is  abolilhed,  and  that  things  pertaining  to  the 
ceremonial  law,  or  peculiar  to  the  ftate  of  the  Jews  in 
Canaan,  do  not  apply  to  us  ;  but  we  have  no  intima- 
tion, from  precept  or  hiftorical  fa6fc,  that  the  princi- 
ples of  the  government  are  changed.  Founded  in  rea- 
fon,  and  taught  by  the  light  of  nature,  as  well  as  by 
the  word  of  God,  they  mufc  ever  remain  the  fame. 

Now,  it  is  a  leading  principle  in  this  government, 
that  it  be  adminiflered,  not  by  the  body  of  the  people, 
but  by  officers  appointed  to  judge  and  decide  in  all 
matters  of  controverfy  and  difcipline. 

Thus  we  are  informed,  that  "  Mofes  chofe  able  men 
out  of  all  Ifrael,  and  made  them  heads  over  the  people 

-  _  -  -  -  and  they  judged  the  people  at  all  feafons." 

Exod,  xviii.   25,  26. 

So  it  is  faid,  *'  The  priefts,  the  fons  of  Levi,  fhall 
come  near  ;  and  by  their  word  fliall  every  controverfy 
and  every  flroke  be  tried."     Dent,  xxi,  5. 

And  fo  we  are  toldj  that  "  Jehofhaphet  fet  of  the 
Levites,  and  of  the  priefls,  and  of  the  chief  of  the  fa- 
thers of  Ifrael,  for  the  judgment  of  the  Lord,  and  for 
controverfies." — 2  Chron.  xix.  8. 

Agreeably  to  this  principle,  founded  in  reafon, 
and  fanOioned  by  divine  authority,  we  find,  that  our 
Lord  Jefus,  the  head  and  governor  of  his  church,  to 
wiiom  "  all  power  is  given,  in  heaven  and  in  earth," 
raid  from  whom  alone  all  authority  mult  be   derived, 


has  committed  the  whole  minifterial  government  and 
difcipline,  as  well  as  the  adminiHration  of  every  ordi- 
nance in  his  church,  to  his  apoilles,  and  to  thofe  who 
iucceed  them  as  officers  in  his  houfe,  and  to  none 
clfe. 

To  thefe  it  was  that  he  (iud,  *'  As  my  father  hath  fent 
me,  fo  fend  I  you  ;  whofe  foever  fins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  therji ;  and  whofe  foever  fins  ye  retain, 
ihey  are  retained."— J^oA^  xx.  23.  *'  Whatfoever  ye 
fhall  bind  on  earth,  fhail  be  bound  in  heaven,  and 
whatfoever  ye  (hall  loofe  on  earth,  fhall  be  loofed  in 
heaven." — Matth.  xviii.  18.  To  thefe  he  gave  commif- 
fion,  faying,  "Go ye  therefore,  and  difciple  all  nations, 
"baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Gholl ;  teaching  them  to  obferve 
all  things,  whatfoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo, 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world." — Matth.  xxviii.  19. 

This  commilEon  is  fhort,  but  comprehenfivc.  It 
directs  to  teach  the  obfervance  of  all  things,  whatfoever 
ChriH:  had  commanded.  The  things  which  he  had 
communicated  to  them  before  his  crucifi6lion,  were  not 
few.  lie  then  told  them,  however,  that  hs  had  many 
things  to  Uy  unto  them,  whic';  they  could  notyet  hear. 
But  while  he  continued  with  them,  after  his  refurrec- 
tion,  "  forty  days,  fpeaking  of  the  things  pertaining  to 
the  kingdom  of  God,"  he,  doubtlefs,  more  fully  taught 
them  the  nature  of  his  kingdom ;  and  certainly  left  them 
not  without  every  neceffary  inftrudion  on  this  head, 
when  he  fent  the  promifed  Spirit  lo  '-'teach  them  all. 
things,  and  to  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance." 
In  their  writings  and  pratlicc  then,  we  mny  expe6l  to 


find  all  the  information  which  we  further  need  on  this- 
fubjeft. 

From  thefe  fources  we  learn,  that  the  apoilles  were 
to  ordain,  and  did  ordain,  elders,  who  were  to  take  the 
overfight  of  the  church,  and  to  adininifter  ail  its  ordi- 
nances. Among  thefe  elders  we  find  fome  xvho  labour 
by  word  and  dodlrine,  and  others,  clearly  diftinguiGied 
from  thefe,  whofe  authority  and  ollice  are  confined  to 
government,  and  who  are  called  govcrnment.s,  or  govern- 
crs,  and  elders  who  nde  well. 

This  is  perfettly  confonant  to  the  government  of 
the  Jewifli  church,  in  which  we  find  among  its  rulers, 
not  only  priells  and  Levites,  but  chief  of  the  fathers 
who  were  not  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  For  Mofes  ckof& 
able  men  oiU  of  all  Ifrael,  and  made  them  heads  of  the  peo- 
fie,  to  jtidge  them  at  all  feafons,  Jufl  fo  the  officers, 
whom  the  Lord  Tefus,  in  confequence  of  his  afcendin? 
up  on  high,  gave  for  the  work  of  the  minijlry,  and  Jot  th& 
idifying  of  his  body  ;  officers,  whom  God  hathfet  or  ap^ 
pointed  in  his  church,  are,  no  doubt,  in  like  manner  to 
judge  his  people.  There  is  no  intimation  in  the  New 
Teftament,  that  the  body  of  believers  have  any  fuch 
power  given  them  ;  or  that  they  ever  prefumed  to  ex- 
ercife  fuch  power.  That  they  can  have  no  fuch  power 
is  certain,  becaufe  this  was  wholly  committed  to  the  a- 
poftles  before  any  chrillian  church  was  formed  ;  and 
committed  to  them,  apart,  in  a  mountain  in  Galilee, 
where  their  Lord  had  appointed  to  meet  them  alone, 
as  if  of  fet  purpofe,  to  prevent  the  people  from  imaojn- 
ing  that  any  fuch  power  was  committed  to  them. 

In    the  writings  of  the  apoftles,   nothing  flrikes  us 
more  forcibly  than  the  diftin6ion  between  rulers  and 


ruled.  The  names  or  titles  by  which  church  officers  are 
defK^nated,  all  import  rule  or  authority.  They  are 
called  preJhyUrs  or  elders,  bijhops  or  overfeers,  guides  or 
leaders,  Jiewards  of  the  myjleries  of  God — fuch  as  their 
Lord  will  make  rulers  over  his  houfehold ;  pajlors  or 
Jhcphcrds,  whofe  bufinefs  is  to  govern  as  well  as  feed 
the  flock  ;  rulers  or  ciders,  who  rule  well — governments 
or  governors. 

On  the  other  hand,  all  the  names  by  which  the  peo- 
ple are  defignated  imply  fubordination  and  fubjeQion  ; 
as  fiock,  body,  kingdom^  houje  or  houfehold,  &c.  Thefe 
never  rule,  but  obey  :  and  it  is  abundantly  and  ftri6t- 
ly  enjoined  on  them  to  remember  thofe  who  have  the  rule 
over  them  ;  to  obey  thzm — tofubmit  Lo  them  ;  to  ejleem  them 
highly  for  their  work  fake,  and  to  account  them  worthy  of 
double  honor.  Can  it  be  imagined  then,  that  nodiftinc- 
tion  is  to  be  made  between  rulers  and  ruled  ;  but  that 
all  have  equal  authority  in  the  church  of  Chrift  ? 

Hear  what  Paul  fays,  in  his  twelfth  chapter  to  the 
Romans.  He  obferves,  that  all  have  not  the  fame  of- 
fice in  the  church.  In  enumerating  the  different  of- 
fices he  mentions  ruling  as  one,  and  exhorts,  that  it  be 
performed  with  diligence  ;  plainly  intimating,  that  rul- 
ing is  a  bufinefs  appointed  to  fome,  in  dillinftion  from 
others.  He  at  the  fame  time  clearly  diflinguifhes  him 
that  ruleihhom  fuch  rulers  as  likewife  teachd^nd  exhort^ 
who  are  mentioned  befides  in  this  enumeration. 

And  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  firft  epiflle  to  the 
Corinthians,  the  fame  apoflle,  fpeaking  of  the  church  as 
compared  to  a  human  body,  confifting  of  various  mem- 
bers, which  have  their  feveral  fundions  afligned  them, 
(hews   how   monPtrous  a   figure  it  would  prefent  if  it 


C     >3     3 

were  other  wife,  when  he  afks,  "  If  the  whole  body  v^cre 
ah  eye  where  were  the  hearing  ?  If  the  whole  were  hear- 
ing, where  were  the  fmelling  ?"  And  fo  we  may  alk.  If 
the  whole  church  were  rulers,  where  were  the  ruled  ? 
But  to  Ihew  that  the  body  of  Chrifl  is  no  fuch  monfter, 
he  in  the  twenty-eighth  verfe  enumerates  the  feveral 
•  officers  which  "  God  hath  fet  in  the  church"  ;  and  among 
others  he  mentions  governments  ox  governors^  as  a  diftin^ 
order,  appointed  by  divine  authority. 

Does  not  all  this  teach  us,  that  fomeare  to  bear  rule 
in  the  church,  and  not  all  ?  And  do  not  reafon  and 
common  fenfe  teach  the  fame  ?  It  is  certainly  more 
likely,  that  a  cafe  will  be  determined  agreeably  to  truth 
and  juftice,  by  a  fele£l  number  of  judges,  than  by  the 
promifcuous  multitude.  What  would  we  think  of  the 
prudence  of  the  man,  who,  having  an  important  caufe 
to  be  tried,  fhould  choofe  to  have  it  decided  by  all  the 
men  in  a  certain  diflriO;,  indifcriminately,  rather  than 
by  a  chofen  number  of  the  moll  upright,  wife  and  well- 
informed  ?  Or  what  opinion  would  we  entertain  of  the 
wifdom  of  that  government,  or  king,  that  fhould  ere6l  a. 
court,  confiding  of  fuch  an  indifcriminate  multitude  ? 
And  fhall  we  venture  to  afcribe  fuch  management  to 
the  King  of  Zion  ?  Has  he  appointed  all  the  fubjeds  in 
his  kingdom  to  be  rulers  in.  it  ?  Or  Oiall  they  ufurp  the 
office  without  his  appointment !  If  they  lay  claim  to 
power  in  the  church,  let  them  fhew  us  what  it  is  ;  when 
they  received  it;  and  from  whom  they  derived  it.  It 
certainly  becomes  thofe  who  undertake  to  bear  rule  in 
the  kingdom  of  Chrift,  duly  to  confider  what  evidence 
there  is  of  their  having  received  authority  for  this  pur- 
pofe,  from  him  to  whom  all  power  in  Heaven  and  on 
earth  is  given. 


C       '4       ] 

Here  a  palTage  of  fcripture  prefents  itfelf  for  our 
examination.  It  is  thought  by  fome  that  that,  in  Matth. 
xviii.  17.  which  dire6ls  a  complaint  againft  an  offending 
brother  to  be  laid  before  the  church,  fuppofes  the  pow- 
er of  deciding  in  cafes  of  difcipline  to  be  in  the  people, 
however  they  may  become  poffeffed  of  it. 

Let  us  attend  to  this  paffage  :  If  the  offender  heark- 
en not  to  private  admonition,  the  complainant  is  direft- 
ed  to  tell  it  unto  the  church.  Now,  the  fingle  queflion 
to  be  decided  is,  what  is  here  meant  by  the  church? 
That  it  cannot  mean  the  whole  body  of  the  people  in  a 
congregation,  is  certain  ;  becaufe  this  includes  old  and 
young,  male  and  female  j  which  cannot  be  what  is 
here  intended,  unlefs  we  fuppofe  that  Chrift  has  ap- 
pointed women  and  children  to  be  rulers  in  his  king- 
dom. Some  therefore  fuppofe,  that  it  means  the  adult 
males.  But  are  thefe  ever  called  the  church  ?  No. 
There  cannot  be  a  fingle  inftance  produced,  where  the 
males,  exclufive  of  women  and  children,  are  fo  called. 
To  fuppofe  them  to  be  here  meant,  is  to  put  a  meaning 
on  the  word  church,  which  it  no  where  bears  in  the 
whole  bible  ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  admitted  here, 
unlefs  the  fcope  of  the  paffage  require  it.  But  this  is 
To  far  from  being  the  cafe,  that  it  abfolutely  forbids  it. 
For  it  mull  be  confidered,  that  the  form  of  govern- 
ment, fubfiH-ing  at  the  time  when  this  direction  was 
given,  was  indifputabiy  the  Jewifli,  which  determined 
all  caufes,  not  by  the  body  oi  the  people,  nor  by  the 
brotherhood,  but  by  rulers  or  judges  appointed  for 
that  purpofe.  The  difciplcs,  therefore,  could  not  pof- 
fibly  underftand  their  Lord  to  mean  any  thing  by  tell^ 


C     i-S     3 

in^  to  the  church  ;  but  that  the  matter  was  to  be  laid  be- 
fore the  rulers  or  judges,  appointed  to  decide  in  all 
fuch  cafes,  agreeably  to  the  only  form  of  government 
known  in  the  church  of  God. 

But  is  this  bench  of  rulers,  or  judges,  ever  called 
the  church  ?  Yes  :  this  is  its  ufual  ftyle.  The  Hebrew 
words  gnedah  and  kahal,  tranflated  in  the  Engiifh  con- 
gregation^ rendered  in  the  Greek  ecclefia  which  we  tranf- 
late  Church,  are  ufed  to  exprefs  the  body  of  rulers.  A 
ftudied  brevity  will  confine  us  to  a  fev/  inftances,  out 
of  many,  in  which  thefe  words  were  thus  ufed. 

In  ift.  Chron.  xxviii.  we  are  told,  in  verfe  ifl,  that 
David  affembled  the  princes  and  officers  of  Ifrael  ;  m 
verfe  2d,  that  he  gave  a  folemn  charge  to  his  brethren 
and  his  people  ;  in  verfe  8th,  we  are  informed,  before 
whom  this  charge  was  given  ;  "  In  the  fight  of  Ifreal, 
the  congregation— the  ecclefia  of  the  Lord."  Here  this 
ecclefia  is  clearly  diftinguiflied  from  David's  brethren  and 
people  ',  and  can  mean  no  other  than  the  chiefs  or  offi- 
cers mentioned  in  the  firft  verfe,  as  being  affembled  at 
Jerufalem,  on  the  occafion.  And  they  are  called  all  If- 
rael, becaufe  they  reprefented  all  Ifrael  :  j aft  as  we 
find  by  comparing  Exod.  xx.  18,  19,  with  Deut.  v.  23, 
that  what  is  called  all  the  people  in  the  former,  h  ex- 
plained in  the  latter  to  mean  the  heads  of  tribes  and  ^A; 
ciders. 

In  1.  Chron.  xiii.  the  firft  verfe  informs  us,  that  Da- 
vid confulted  with  the  officers  (called  in  the  fecond 
verfe  all  the  congregation,  the  ecclefia  of  Ifrael)  about 
calling  all  Ifrael  together.  The  fourth  verfe  informs, 
that  all  the  ecclefia  confented  to  the  meafure  ;  and  the 


C     -e    3 

fifth,  that  David  accordingly  called  all  Ifrael  together. 
In  this  paffage  all  the  ecclejia  and  all  Ifrael  are  clearly 
diftinguiflied  ;  and  who  are  meant  by  the  ecckfia,  ap- 
pears plainly,  from  the  firft  verfe,  to  be  the  officers. 

In  Deut.  xxxi.  25,  28,  we  are  informed,  that  Mofes 
commanded  the  Levites  to  gather  unto  him  all  the  el- 
ders of  the  tribes,  and  all  the  officers,  that  he  might 
fpeak  to  them  :  and  in  verfe  30,  it  is  faid,  that  "  Mofes 
fpake  in  the  ears  of  all  the  congregation,  the  ecckfia  of 
Ifrael."  Here  the  ecclefia  evidently  means  the  elders 
and  officers,  called  together  for  the  purpofe  of  receiving 
this  addrefs  of  Mofes.  And  this  is,  no  doubt,  the 
meaning  of  the  expreffion  which  fo  frequently  occurs, 
that  Mofes  fpake  to  all  the  congregation,  or,  in  the  ears  of 
all  the  congregation,  the  ecclefia,  xohatfoever  the  Lord  com- 
mand him.  For  it  Cannot  be  fuppofed,  that  on  thofe 
occalions,  he  called  together  fix  hundred  thoufand 
men,  to  fpeak  in  their  ears. 

From  all  this,  it  plainly  appears,  what  our  Lord 
meant  by  tell  it  unto  the  ecclefa,  the  church.  He  could  not 
be  underftood  to  mean  any  thing  elfe  than  what  was 
well  known  to  be  fignified  by  the  word,  the  rulers  or 
ciders  of  the  church,  who  alone  had  the  power  of  judg- 
ing and  deciding,  in  all  cafes  of  government  and  dif- 
cipline. 

It  being  afcertained  that  matters  of  government  and 
difcipline  are  to  be  managed,  not  by  the  people,  but 
by  the  rulers  of  the  church,  a  queftion  arifes,  Whether 
fuch  bufinefs  lies  before  the  rulers  of  a  fingle  congre- 
gation only,  or  fometimes  alfo  before  the  rulers  of  fev- 
eral  congregations  affembled  together  ? 


C       »7      ] 
It  is  true  that  the  cafe  of  which  Chrift  [ays,   Tell  it 
icnto  the  churchy  is   fuch,  that  if  both  the  parties  belong 
to  the  fame  congregation,  and  the  difference  cannot  be 
fettled  in  a  more  private  way,  it  will  naturally  come, 
in  the  courfe  of  the  proceedings,  before   the  elders  ol^ 
that  congregation.      But   nothing  forbids   to  carry  the 
matter  farther,  if  neceffary.     For  the   Jewifh  govern- 
ment, to  which  our  Lord  alludes,   did  not  confine  the 
term  ecckfia  to  the  rulers  of  a  fingle   congregation  or 
fynagoguc.     It  extended  to  the  higher  judicatory,  the 
fynhedrim.      And  indeed  the  mode  of  proceeding  here 
prefcribed,  affords  no  inconfiderable  argument  forcar- 
r)  ing  the  matter  to  a  higher  judicatory.      For  the  direc- 
tion is  to  proceed  from  the  admonition  of  one,  to  that 
of  two  or  three,  whofe   influence  may  hi  fuppofed  to 
be  greater  j    and  for  the  fame  reafon,   to  proceed  from 
that  of  two  or  three  to  the  elders  of  the  congregation. 
And  by  a  parity  of  reafon  the  caufe  may  be  removed 
ftill  higher,  and  ought  to  be  fo  if  the  offender  fubrait 
not  to  bis  rulers  ;   becaule  here  aiifes  a  new  cafe,  which 
properly  belongs  to  a  higher  court.     If  indeed  the  lo- 
cal circumRances  of  the  congregation  be  fuch  that  ac- 
cefs  cannot  be  had  to  a  higher  judicatory,  the  bufinefs 
muff  terminate  with  them  ;  otherwife  this  is  not  necef- 
fary.     Befides,  thero  are  cafes  to  v/hich  the  rulers  of  a 
fingle  congregation   are  not  competent  :   as  v/hen  the 
parties  are  of  different  congregations;  or  when  a  dif- 
pute  arifcs  between  different  congregations  ;  or  when 
the  people   are  at  variance  with   their  rulers.      Such 
evils  muff  be  removed  by  the  rulers   of  mors   con  ne- 
gations than  one,  or  not  removed  at  all.     But  it  is  not 

B 


C       '3      ] 

to  be  fuppofed,  that  the  head  of  the  church  has  pro- 
vided a  remedy  for  the  frtialler  offences  only,  and  left 
ihe  greater  without  remedy.  He  has  doubtlefs  made 
proviiion  againd  all  fcandals  and  diforders  that  may 
aiife  in  his  church  ;  which  require  the  convention  of 
fometimes  a  fmaller  and  fometimes  a  larger  body  of  its 
rulers,  or  the  interpofition  of  a  lower  or  a  higher  au- 
thority. 

This  was  the  cafe  under  the  Jewifli  difpenfation. 
Thus  we  read  in  Exod.  viii.  26,  and  in  Deut.  i.  17, 
that  when  the  judges  that  were  appointed  in  Ifrael 
found  a  cafe  too  hard  for  them,  they  were  to  bring  it 
to  Mofes.  So  in  Deut.  xviii.  8-  -  1 1.  When  any  mat- 
ter of  controverfy  arofe,  too  hard  to  be  decided  by  the 
judges  in  any  of  their  gates,  they  were  dire£led  to  go 
up  to  the  place  which  the  Lord  their  God  fliould 
choofe,  to  the  priefls,  the  Levites,  and  the  judge,  that 
fliould  be  in  thofe  days.  Thefe  were  to  fhew  them  the 
fentence  of  judgment ;  to  this  they  were  flri£lly  to 
conform,  and  not  to  turn  afide  from  it,  to  the  right 
hand,  or  to  the  left. 

And  this  we  find  to  be  the  praBice  in  the  time  of 
the  apoftles.  When  a  cafe  arofe  too  hard  to  be  decid- 
ed by  the  church  of  Antioch,  (of  which  we  have  an 
account  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  A6ls)  it  was  re- 
ferred to  the  fynod  at  Jerufalem,  and  there  determined. 

Here  I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  faid,  that  the  whole 
churchy  and  the  brethren,  are  reprefented  as  being  joined 
with  the  apoftles  and  elders  in  tranfafting  this  buCnefs. 

To  this  1  anfwer,  that  if  the  church  here  mentioned, 
took  part  in  determining  the  queftion  in  debate,  it  muft 


C    '9    3 

be  that  church  which  had  a  right  to  judge  in  fach  ca- 
fes; which  we  have  before  proved  to  be  no  other  than 
the  body  of  rulers  ;  which  was  one  well  known  accep- 
tation of  the  word  ccclefia,  or  church.     Nothing,  how- 
ever, is  here  faid  of  the  church,  but  that  joined  with 
the  apoflles  and  elders  in  receiving  the  delegates  from 
the  other  churches,  and  in  fending  meiTengers  to  them  ; 
things  very  diflFerent  from  deciding  on  the  queftion  laid 
before  the  fynod.    And  that  if  the  brethren,  here  fpoken 
of,  took  part  in  the  decifion,    they  mufl  be  the  com- 
miflioners  who  came  from  Antioch,  and  probably  from 
Syria  and  Cicilia  too;  becaufe  thefe  churches  were  e- 
qually  interefted  in  the  bufinefs ;  as  alfo  the  elders  of  the 
neighboring  churches  in  Judea,  whence  the  perfons  com*- 
plained  of  had  come;  which  were  probably  concerned. 
But   if  by   the  brethren,    in  this  place,   be  meant 
the  private  members  of  the  church,  it  is  impoffible  to 
fhew  that  they  had  any  voice  in  deciding  the  queftion. 
For  when  we  are  told,  in  the  fecond  verfe,    that  it  was 
determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabus,  and  certain  others, 
fhould  go  up  to  Jerufalem,  it  is  not  faid  that  they  were 
to  go  to  the  brethren,  but  "  unto  the  apoflles  and  elders 
about  this  queftion." — In  the  fixth  verfe  it  is  faid,   not 
that  the    brethren,  but  "  the  apojlks  and   elders  came 
together   to  confider    of  this    matter."      And   in  the 
fourth  verfe   of  the  next  chapter  we  are  told,   that  as 
Paul  and  Silas  went  through  the  cities,  ''  they  deliver- 
ed tliem  the  decrees  to  keep,  that  were  ordained  (not 
of  the  brethren,  but)  of  the  apoflles  and  elders."     It  does 
not  appear  then,  from  any  thing  here  faid,  either  that 
the  brethren  were  ever  confulted  about  the  matter ;  or 


[20] 

that  they  ever  deliberated  upon  it;  or  that  the  decrees 
were  ordained  by  them ;  but  all  thefe  are  exprefsly  at- 
tributed  to  the  apojlles  and  elders.  So  that  unlefs  the 
brethren  here  mentioned  were  the  elders  from  other 
churches,  we  find  no  proof  that  they  were  concerned 
in  deciding  the  quellion. 

But  it  will  be  faid,  We  are  exprefsly  told,  that  "  they 
wrote  letters  after  this  manner  :  The  apollles,  and  el- 
ders, and  brethren,  fend  greeting  to  the  brethren  which 
are  at  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia."     This  is  true  ;  but 
it  does  not  prove  that  thefe  brethren  gave  their  voice 
in  deciding  the  queftion  laid  before  the   apollles   and 
elders  ;  but  only  that  they  joined  with  them  in  chrif- 
tian  falutation,    or  greeting  to    the   other   churches. 
When  a  man  writes  to  his  friend,  if  others  be  prefent, 
they  often  join  in  friendly  falutations,  while  they  have 
no  other  concern  in  the  letter.     Thefe  falutations  we 
ufually  mention  in  the  clofe  of  the  letter;   but  it  was 
cuflomary,  it  feems,  in  the  time  of  the  apoftles,  for 
fuch  falutations  to  be  contained  in  the  addrefs  at  the 
beginning,  without  the  moft  diflant  intimation  that 
the  letter  was  the  produ6lion  of  the  perfons  whofe 
names  were  thus  inferted.    No  lefs  than  eight  of  Paul's 
epiftles  begin  in  this  manner — Paul  and  Softhenes  our 
brother — Paul  and  Timothy  our  brother — Paul,  and 
Sylvanus,  and  Timotheus — Paul  and  all  the  brethren 
which  are  with  me  unto  the  church  in  fuch,  or  fuch  a 
place.     Now  did  any  one  ever  fuppofe,  that  the  breih- 
len  thus  mentioned  with  Paul  were  joint  authors  with 
him  of  the  epiftles  to  which  their  names  are  prefixed  ? 
And  what  more  reafon  is  there  to  think  that  the  breth- 


[         21         ] 

ren  named  in  the  very  fame  manner  in  the  introduflion 
of  the  letters  under  prefent  confideration  are  to  be  ac- 
counted authors  of  thofe  letters,  o\-  of  the  decrees  con- 
tained in  them  ?  We  ftill  find  it  impoflible  to  flievv  that 
thefe  brethren  took  part  in  this  decifion,  unlefs  we  fup- 
pofe  them  to  be  church  officers,  who  had  a  right  to  fjt 
in  judgment,  and  no  doubt  did  fo. 

From  this  inveftigation,  we  have  fufficiently  afcer- 
tained  thefe  two  eflential  points;  i.  That  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  is  lodged  not  in  the  body  of  the 
people,  or  the  brotherhood,  but  in  rulers  invefted  with 
authority  derived  from  the  great  head  of  the  church  ; 
and  2.  That  this  authority  is  exercifed,  fometimes  by 
the  rulers  of  a  fingle  congregation;  and  fometimes,  by 
thofe  of  more  congregations  jointly  :  or  in  otherwords, 
that  there  are,  by  divine  appointment,  higher  and  low- 
er indicatories  in  the  church,  under  the  chrillian  as  well 
as  under  the  Jewilli  difpenfation. 

Some  contend,  that  the  word  church,  in  the  New- 
Teftament,  means  a  fmgle  congregation,  and  hence  con- 
clude that  its  government  mud  be  congregational ; 
whether  it  be  adminiftered  by  the  elderfhip,  or  by  the 
brotherhood. 

I  answer;  if  the  word  church, in  the  New  Teftament 
ever  lignifies  a  fingle  congregation,  furely  it  will  not: 
be  pretended  that  it  always  does  fo.  It  fometimes  fifr- 
nifies  the  invifible  church,  confiding  of  all  true  believ- 
ers, in  Heaven  and  on  earth ;  for  which  Chrifl:  gave 
himfelf — that  he  might  prefent  it  to  himfelf  a  glorious 
church,  not  having  fpot  or  wrinkle.  And  fometimes  it 
fignifies  the  vifible  catholic  body  of  Chrift,  compre- 


C  ^2  ] 

hendincT  all  thofe  throughout  the  world,  who  profefs  the 
true  religion.  This  is  that  church  which  the  apoftle 
compares  to  an  organical  body,  having  eyes,  ears,  hands 
and  feet.  The  members  of  which  are  to  have  the  fame 
care  one  of  another,  that  there  may  be  no  Ichifm  in 
the  body.  This  is  the  body  on  which  the  fpirit  of  God 
has  conferred  diverfity  of  gifts,  wifdom,  knowledge,  &c. 
This  is  the  church  in  which  God  hath  fet  apoftles,  pro- 
phets, teachers,  helps,  governments,  for  the  perfe£ling 
of  the  faints,  for  the  work  of  the  miniftry,  for  the  edi- 
fying of  the  body  of  Chrift.  Will  any  prefume  to  fay, 
that  this  body,  or  church,  is  a  fingle  congregation  ? 

We  can,  however,  find  yet  another  fenfe  of  the  word 
church.  That  is,  when  it  is  ufed  to  fignify  a  pait  of  this 
univerfal  vifible  body  of  Chrift,  containing  a  plurality 
of  congregations  ;  the  government  of  which  canriot  be 
congregational,  but  prefbyterial  ? 

That  the  word  church  in  the  New-Teftament  is  ufed 
to  fignify  a  plurality  of  congregations  we  may  beeafily 
convinced,  by  attending  to  the  ftate  of  fome  of  the  chief 
cities  in  which  the  apoftles  planted  churches.  Each  of 
thefe  is  called  the  church,  in  the  fingular  number;  and 
yet  it  is  not  difficult  to  Ihew,  that  each  contained  more 
than  a  fingle  congregation,  capable  of  convening  in  one 
place  for  attending  public  worfhip. 

That  the  church  of  Jerufalem,  for  inflance,  contain- 
ed more  than  one  congregation  is  proved  from  the 
number  of  her  officers — the  number  of  her  converts — ■ 
the  want  of  a  building  fufficient  to  contain  them — and 
from  the  diverCty  of  languages  which  prevailed  among 
them. 

1.  Besides,  the  prophets   and  prefbyters  in  that 


C       =3       ] 

church,  and  her  feven  deacons,  we  learn  from  the  hif- 
tory  of  the  Afts,  that  lerufalem  was  the  ufual  refidence 
of  the  apoflles  themfelvcG,  for  feveral  years.  Now  that 
fo  many  minifters  fhould  confine  themfelvcs  fo  long  to 
a  fingle  congregation,  while  fo  wide  a  field  lay  opea 
for  their  labours  elfewhere,  is  incredible.     But, 

2.  That  this  church  fhould  make  but  one  congre- 
gation, is  rendered  no  lefs  incredible  by  the  vafl  mul- 
titude of  its  members.     Our  Lord  before  his  afcention 
was  feen  of  above  five  hundred  at  once  ;   i  Cor.  xv.  6. 
At  Peter's  firll  fermon,   after  the  elTufion  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft,   there  were  added  to  the  church  about  three 
thoufand  fouls;   A6ls   ii.  41.      And  thf^  Lord  added 
to  the  church  daily  fuch  as  fhould  be  faved  ;  v.  47. 
After  this,  it  is  faid,  many  of  them  who  heard  the  word 
believed ;  and  the  number  of  men  was  about  five  thou- 
fand ;    A£ls  iv.  4.     After  this  we  have  an  account  of 
more  believers  being  added  to  the  Lord  ;  multitudes, 
both  of  men  and  women  ;   A€ts  v.  14,     Again  we  arc 
told,  that  the  number  of  the  difciples  was  multiplied  ; 
A6ls  vi.  1.     And  again,  that  the  v/ord  of  the  Lord  in- 
creafed  ;  and  the  number  of  the  difciples  multiplied  in 
Jerufalem  greatly  ;  and  a  great  company  of  the  priefts 
were  obedient  to  the  faith  ;  v.  7.  We  read  of  yet  more 
additions  being  made,  when  this  church,  as  well  as  oth- 
ers in  judea,  had  reil,and  were  multiplied  ;   A6i:s  ix.31. 
And  after  Peter's  miraculous  deliverance  from  prifon, 
the  word  of  God  flill  grew  and  multiplied ;  A6ls  xii.  24. 
Now,  can   any  one  believe,  that  all  thefe  made  only 
one  congregation  ?   But   what  will    he  think  when  he 
reads  in  A£is  xxi.  20,  that  when  Paul  went  up  to  Je- 
rufalem he  was  thus  addrcffed  by  the  elders,  *'Thoii 


[   M   1 

feeft,  brother,  how  many  thoufands  cf  Jews  there  are 
which  believe  ?"  How  many  myriads  or  tens  of  thoufands 
it  is  in  the  Greek.  Now  f'urely  many  cannot  mean  lefs 
than  three  or  four  ;  that  is  to  fay,  thirty  or  forty  thou- 
fand.  I  afk,  then,  could  thirty  or  forty  thoufand  meet 
for  public  worfhip  in  one  congregation  ?  This  is  ren- 
dered the  more  incredible, 

3.  By  their  having  no  building  capacious  enough  to 
hold  fo  prodigious  a  multitude.      It  is  true,  the  apof- 
tles  went  daily  to  the  temple  to  preach  to  the  Jews  ; 
and  by  this  mean  acquired  great  acceffions  to  the  church. 
But  that  thofe  Jews  fhould  permit  the  hated  and  per- 
fecuted  chriftians  to  make  this  the  cuftomary  place  of 
meeting  for  their  worfhip ;  and  for  partaking  of  bread 
and  wine  not  confecrated  according  to  the  Jewifli  ri- 
tual ;  and  that  in  commemoration  of  that  Jefus  whom 
they  had  crucified  ;  is  utterly  incredible.      In  (lead  of 
this,  we  are  informed  of  their  meeting  in  private  hou- 
fes ;  as  in  the  houfe  of  Mary,  and  in  an  upper  room ; 
and  of  their  breaking  bread  from  houfe  to  houfe.  And 
after  the  converfion  of  fo  many  Jews,  and  when  a  great 
company  of  the  priefls   had  become  obedient  to  the 
faith,  probably  they  made  ufe  of  fome  of  the   fyna- 
oogues  to  meet  in  ;   which  feems  to  be  confirmed  by 
Paul's  faying,  that  he  pimijhcd  them  oft  in  every  Jynagogue, 
But  could  they  have  found  a  building  capable  of  con- 
taining, and  a  human  voice  able  to  reach  fo  vafl  a  mul- 
titude.    Yet, 

4.  They  could  not  have  been  edified,  becaufe  of  the 
diverfity  of  languages  that  prevailed  among  them. 
From  the  fecond  chapter  of  the  A£ls  we  learn,  that 
there  were  (not  vi filing,  but)  dwelling  at  Jerufalem, 


C      25      ] 

devout  men  out  of  every  nadon  under  Heaven  ;  that 
for  their  fakes  the  apoftles  were  endowed  with  the  gift 
of  tongues,  that  they  might  addrefs  them  in  their  fev- 
eral  languages;  and  that  out  of  thefe  many  of  the 
church  of  Jerufalem  were  collected.  For  the  edifica- 
tion of  thefe  then,  it  was  neceffary  that  they  fhould 
meet  in  feparate  affemblies. 

When  we  lay  all  thefe  things  together,  can  we  doubt 
whether  the  church  of  Jerufalem  comprehended  more 
than  one  congregation  ?  Yet  this  was  but  one  church, 
and  confequently  fubje6l  to  one  government. 

In  nearly  the  fame  manner  it  can  be  proved  that  the 
churches  of  Antioch,  Corinth  and  Ephefus,  contained 
each  a  plurality  of  congregations.  Yet  each  is  called 
the  church,  in  the  lingular  number,  and  mud  therefore 
have  been  under  one  common  government. 

Indeed  it  is  not  eafy  to  prove,  that  the  word  church 
is  ever  ufed  in  the  New-Tefhament  to  fignify  a  fingle 
independent  congregation  of  chriRians.  The  church 
at  Cenchrea  might  poflibly  ronfill;  of  but  one  congrega- 
tion, becaufe  the  place  is  fuppofed  to  have  been  fmall. 
But  it  was  probably  under  thejurifdi6tion  of  the  pref- 
by  tery  of  Corinth  ;  Cenchrea  being  a  port  town  in  its 
vicinity. 

That  there  was  a  plurality  of  congregations  in  the 
church  of  Corinth  we  are  plainly  taught,  by  the  apof- 
tle's  faying,  "  let  your  women,  the  Corinthian  women, 
keep  filence  in  the  churches."  Here  we  find  churches  in 
the  church  of  Corinth.  Not  independent  churches, 
furely,  but  feparate  congregations. 
The  fame  apollle,  writing  to  the  churches  of  Galatia, 


C     <'6     ] 

fpeaks  of  them  as  one  body*    He  telb  them,  that  a  lit- 
tle  leven  leveneth   the    whole    lump — corrupts   the 
whole  body  ;  direds  the  fpiritual,  among  them,  to  ref- 
tore  in  the  fpirit  of  meeknefs,  fuch  as  might  be  overtak- 
en in  a  fault ;  to  bear  one   anothers   burdens  ;   and  to 
cut  off,  by  Wholefome   difcipline,  thofe   who  troubled 
them.     All  this  would  lead  us  to  think  that  thofe  chur- 
ches of  Galatia  were  under  one  government.     And  we 
are  fure  that  this  was  the  cafe  of  thofe  to  whomPeter  ad- 
dreiled  his  firft:  epiftle.     They  were  fcaitered  throughout 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia^  Afia  and  Bithynia.  Yet  the  a- 
poftle  calls  them  exprefsly  ihejlock  of  God ;  and  exhorts 
the  elders,  conjointly,  io feed,  or  as  the  word  fignifies, 
to   rule  or  govern  this  ous.  Jlock  which  was  among  them, 
not  by  conjiraint  hut  willingly.       Will  any  man  fay  that 
this    people,   fo  widely  difperfed,  through    fo  many 
countries,  was  onejiock,  becaufe  it  was  but  one  fingle 
congregation,  meeting  in  one  place  ?    Doubtlefs  they 
weieone  flock  becaufe  they  v/ere  united  under  one  com- 
mon prefbyterial  government. 

But  does  not  the  prefbyterial  government  take  away 
all  the  rights  of  the  people  ?  No  :  It  takes  away  no 
right.  It  refufes  them  the  right  of  governing,  which 
they  never  pofTefTed,  and  therefore  connot  loofe.  But 
they  flill  retain  theright  of  choohng  their  officers.  This 
is  not  denied  them.  Yet  to  qualify  men  for  entering 
into  office,  in  the  church,  they  mull  be  fet  apart  by 
thofe  to  whom  Chrifl  has  committed  the  power  of  or- 
dination. When  the  deacons  were  to  be  fet  apart,  the 
direQion  of  the  apoRles  to  the  people  was.  "  look  ye  out 
feven  men,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  bufinefs." 
And  when  the  people  had  chofen  them,  wc  are  told, 


that  "  they  fit  them  he/ore  the  apojlles,  and  when  they  had 
grayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them."  The  choice  is  in 
the  people,  but  the  inveftiture  is  in  the  officers  whom 
God  hath  Jet  in  the  church.  And  no  man  may  exercife 
any  ecclefiaftical  authority,  unlefs  he  be  veiled  with  it 
in  the  manner  which  Chrift  has  prefcribed.  The  exer- 
ciling  of  fuch  authority  is  not  a  natural  right  which  we 
poffcfs,  either  as  men  or  as  chriftians  :  And  therefore 
to  refufe  us  this  right  is  not  to  take  it  away. 

It  appears  then  that  the  prefbyterial  government  is 
founded  in  reafon  as  well  as  fcipture;  and  it  is  proved, 
by  experience,  to  have  the  mdft  falutary  efFefts.  Its 
difcipline  is  not  confined  to  the  ofHce  of  a  private  in- 
dividual, in  a  fingle  congregation,  but  reaches  every 
fcandal,  and  every  diforder,  whether  arifing  in  one  con- 
gregation or  in  more.  None  govern  but  fuch  as  are  ef- 
teemed  wife  and  good  ;  and  if  they  err,  as  the  beft  may 
do,  the  aggrieved  may  find  relief  by  applying  to  a 
higher  tribunal,  unprejudiced  and  difinterefled. 

It  is  not  one  of  the  fmallefl;  evils  attending  the  con- 
gregational mode  of  government,  that  when  a  difpute 
arifes  between  church  members,  each  has  his  friends  or 
partizans,  fome  way  or  other  prepoffefTed  in  his  favor, 
and  prejudiced  againft  the  oppofite  party.  When, 
therefore,  they  come  together,  to  deliberate  on  the 
cafe,  they  are  divided  ;  and  it  frequently  happens,  that 
the  oftener  they  meet  upon  the  fubjedl,  the  more  they 
become  exafperated  againft  each  other,  and  the  bufi- 
nefs  is  ftill  unfinilhed.  Or,  if  a  decifion  is  made,  juf- 
tice  too  often  fulFers  in  the  conflift  of  paffion.  When 
this  happens,  the  injured  has  no  redrefs  ;  an  evil 
which  finds  a  happy  remedy  in  the  prefbyterial  gov* 
errjmcnt. 


[      .8      ]  ' 

The  benefit  of  this  kind  of  government  the  Jews 
enjoyed.  And  fhall  we  not  avail  ourfelves  of  it  ?  Or 
has  our  benevolent  Lord  and  mafter  prohibited  this  ? 
Whence  does  this  appear  ?  We  muft  have  ftrong  evi- 
dence indeed,  before  we  can  believe,  that  he  has  ren- 
dered the  ftaie  of  his  church  lefs  favourable  in  this  ad- 
vanced period  of  it,  than  it  was  under  the  more  imper- 
feft  economy  of  the  Jews  ;  or  that  they  poJOTeflTed  ad- 
vantages of  which  we  are  deprived.  But  have  we  not 
abundant  evidence  of  the  contrary  ?  A  little  of  this 
evidence  and  but  a  little,  of  what  might  be  adduced, 
has  been  brought  to  view  in  this  fhort  effay. 

Now,  though  I  firmly  believe  the  prefbyterial  form 
of  church  government  to  be  what  is  mofl  conformable 
to  reafon  and  fcripture  ;  and  do  not  hefitate  to  fay, 
that  I  confider  that  which  is  purely  independent  as  re- 
pugnant to  both  ;  yet  I  do  not  view  the  congregation- 
al   oovernment  of  the  churches  in  Conne6ticut  as  de- 

o 

viating  fo  widely  from  what  I  conceive  to  be  right. — 
Many  of  thofe  who  are  called  congregationalifts  are  re- 
ally prefbyterians ;  though  not  ftriClly  fuch.  I  appre- 
hend, however,  that  they  differ  from  other  prefbyte- 
rians, not  fo  much  in  pra6lice  as  in  theory  ;  and  not 
fo  much  in  theory  as  in  words. 

Is  the  prefbyterial  a  reprefentative  government  ?  So 
is  the  congregational.  If  the  pallor  and  elders  are  not 
fo  properly  the  church,  as  its  reprefentatives  ;  fo  neither 
can  the  paflor  and  the  male  communicants  be  faid  to 
be  more  than  reprefentatives.  One  difiPerence  howev- 
er is,  that  in  the  one  cafe  the  reprefentatives  are  chofea 
by  the  people,  and  fet  apart  to  their  office  by  authori- 
ty derived  from  the  the  head  of  the  church  ;    in  the 


[      29      3 

other  cafe  the  reprefentatives  are  neither  chofen  nor  fet 
apart !  Another  difference  is,  that  in  the  one  cafe  there 
is  a  larger,  but  lefs  judicious  reprefentation  than  in  the 
other. 

This  latter  difference,  however,  would  be  leffened 
if  the  prefbyterians  (hould  enlarge  their  reprefentation.  ^ 
A  congregation  may  choofe  ten  or  more  elders  ;    and 
then,  1  apprehend,  they  would  have  all  that,  in  moft 
congregations,  can  be  found  fit  to  be  employed  in  the 
government  of  the  church.     Indeed  it  is  queftionable, 
whether,   in  moft  congregational  meetings,  there  be 
more  than  half  a  dozen  free  and  independent   voices ; 
and  fome  times,  perhaps  not  more  than  half  that  num- 
ber.    A  few   principle    men    exprefs    their   opinion, 
which  is  ufually  follov/ed  by  the  reft  :  or,  if  they  have 
different  fentiments,   they  have  their  followers,   who 
give  their  votes,  not   fo  much  from  their  own  judg- 
ment, as  from  the  influence  of  their  refpe£live  leaders. 
As  in  point  of  reprefentation  the  congregationalifts 
do  not  differ  from  other  prefbyterians  fo  much  as  fome 
of  them  imagine  ;    fo,   upon  examination,  perhaps  ic 
may  be  found,  that  they  do  not  differ  from  them  great- 
ly in  the  higher  judicatories. 

Great  part  of  the  bufinefs  tranfa6led  in  prefbyte- 
ries  and  fynods,  is  done  in  the  affociations,  confocia- 
tions  and  councils.  The  chief  difference  is,  that  the 
fentence  of  the  former  is  moftiy  authoritative  and  dcci- 
five  ;  that  of  the  latter,  for  the  moft  part,  only  advifo- 
ry.  It  is  not,  however,  always  fo  :  in  the  licenfmg  of 
candidaL-es  for  the  gofpel  minifty  ;  in  the  ordination 
of  minifters ;  in  the  excommunication  of  congregations 
or  parts  of  congregations,  become  corrupt,  and  walking 
diforderly;   in  the  rsftoration  of  perfons  fupp6fed  to 


C    30     3 

be  unjuftly  excommunicated,  and  in  the  determination 
of  cafes  fubmitted  to  them,  the  fentence  of  a  council 
is  not  advifory,  but  judicial. 

Another  difference  is,  that  prefbyteries  and  fynods 
are  (landing  bodies  ;  but  councils,  among  the  congrc- 
gationalifts,  are  chofen,  occafionally,  by  the  contend- 
ing parties.  Here,  I  fhould  think,  the  preference  is 
clearly  to  be  given  to  the  former.  They  are  perfe6lly 
difmterefted  and  unbiaffed  :  whereas  the  numbers  of 
the  latter,  being  chofen  by  the  parties,  are  in  danger 
of  being  unduly  influenenced  to  advocate  the  caufe  of 
the  parties  by  which  they  are  refpe£lively  chofen. 

Another  difference  is,  that  the  affociations  conflfl: 
frequently  of  minifters  only,  without  any  other  repre- 
fentatives  of  the  people  ;  whereas  the  prefbyteries  and 
fynods  are  always  compofed  of  minifters  and  elders. 
So  that  in  this  refpedl  the  prelbyterial  is  a  more  popu- 
lar government  than  the  congregational.  The  Say- 
Brook  Platform,,  indeed,  recognizes  ruling  elders  ;  and 
I  am  informed,  that  fome  of  the  affociations  in  Con- 
ne6licut  have  introduced  them,  and  that  others  have 
it  in  contemplation  to  do  fo ;  which  makes  them  what 
we  call  prefbyteries. 

I  hope  therefore,  the  congregationalifls  and  other 
prefbyterians  will  not  confider  their  difference  to  be 
fuch  as  ought  to  prevent  their  uniting  under  the  form 
of  government  adopted  by  either,  when  all  have  not 
an  opportunity  of  connedling  themfelves  with  congre- 
gations, formed  on  the  plan  which  they  would  prefer. 
This  would  greatly  facilitate  the  fettlement  of  the 
oofpel  in  places  inhabited  by  people  accuftomed  to 
thefe  different  forms  of  church  government. 

THE  END. 


r 


J.. 


